GG

They don't have the same megaphone.

Would be awesome if Maduro recognizes CPL as the official POTUS.

I'm guessing something is brewing in Venezuela. Maduro should start checking safe heavens.

Unless you were present at all the pre-draft meetings and in the war room, the are the things we know for sure: 1) Bills didn't draft Mahomes with that pick 2) The rest of the personnel staff was fired immediately after the draft Everything else is the usual BADOL conjecture, which will undoubtedly change with the tides of news flow.

Are you saying that Trump is the first POTUS to ever threaten to use his Constitutionally given veto power? The horrible precedent is to exercise fully vested powers?

Nancy Pelosi has the same power by agreeing to the wall funding and getting a bill through the House, then on to the Senate and finally to the White House. Don't be disingenuous.

Let's try this again. You explicitly said that the shutdown is responsibility of one man who's refused to sign "bills" that were passed by both chambers. Yet, there was no bill that's crossed his desk. Wouldn't that also make other people responsible?

So in summary, there wasn't a bill for him to sign. As someone said, words matter.

So in summary, there wasn't any bill that passed both chambers that is ready for Trump's signature, and he's the only roadblock.

Exactly which budget bills have been passed by both chambers and are ready for POTUS signature?

Has nothing to do with what Mahomes turned into. It has everything to do with the internal deliberations on trading away that pick, and Pegulas had a front row seat and know exactly who was advocating what and what the plan was going to be going forward.

I thought her WW2 comment was an embellishment. But no, she actually said it.

So to teach them a lesson you turned into the stereotype.

I guess the nephew missed his allowance this month?

Did you manage to keep your eyebrow in place with that witty retort?

You're quite comical to think that Canadian pride is something that the country earned all on its own, except you're the kindhearted feeble nephew the family feels sorry for and takes care of him for life.

This only proves that you're lazy and disingenuous. The sample list provided by 3rd is something that you could have easily obtained on your own by reading any of the dozens of threads devoted to this topic. Your dismissals of the sources underscores the point as well. If you're looking for the truth, but unwilling to trust anyone who doesn't work for the main 3 broadcast networks, or the major national papers, then you aren't willing to have an open mind on this topic.

Yet again this is how you get more Trump

Again you come back with a textbook response which has a lot more to do with how the US government balances its accounts rather than how the funds are spent productively by private enterprises that leads to real economic growth. The mechanism for clearing treasury auctions has zero correlation to private spending or investment decisions. Economies grow when the private sector thinks it will get a better RoI through investing rather than hiding it under a mattress for a rainy day. When the private sector thinks that a confiscatory period is coming, the capital hides under the mattress, no matter what the government does with deficit spending. Zimbabwe's example is apt, because if your thesis was correct, a developing nation would attract foreign investment drawn by that magic RoI that government spending provides. Except it doesn't. That's also why deficit spending didn't produce real economic growth during the 7 summers of recovery during the golden child's era.

You just can't get your head out of the class. You are talking about the results of what happens in the private sector when the government allows people to keep more of their earnings and assets. You are approaching it from the leftist perspective that the property belongs to the government and it's up to the Treasury's whims when to release it and how it gets deployed, therefore, the more that the government releases, the faster the growth. If that were the case, Zimbabwe would be the envy of the free world, because with the government giving money away would not only drive supersized growth but would invite outside investment to partake in that government stimulous. Our position is that the property belongs to the individual, and government's decision to allow the individuals to keep more of their property and have the people decide what to do with that property is really what makes the economy grow faster. This shouldn't even be up for a debate. Government cannot create wealth. Period. It can only take it away or redistribute it

But a Soviet infiltration of US upper education wasn't a concern. Got it.

If your theory is correct why didn't you pull the growth figures from the decade prior to the 5 years you selected? Please remind me if that was another period of government stimulating the demand.

Economics models are always backwards looking and always try to tie in how government creates private sector demand, when there's zero causal relationship. Ever.

Here you go again. There are two ways to increase the deficit and they're in no way equivalent. One way is for the government to simply spend more than it takes in, while still soaking the private sector. The other way is to maintain the same spending levels, but let the private sector keep more of its earnings. Which one do you think is more conducive to creating real wealth? Which one do you and AOC don't understand?

That doesn't create wealth. It only redistributes it. And to clarify it - it distributes it in the form of passive or active income, and it's the individuals who decide what to do with the additional income, whether to spend or save. If your and AOC's theories were correct, the socialist economies would have won the argument many times over by now.